Thread: In House, Immigration Risky For All Sides

In House, Immigration Risky for All Sides

By: Josh Kraushaar
March 7, 2007 08:14 PM EST


In the House, the 2006 elections offered no clear guidance for either party on how to tackle the politically volatile issue of immigration.

Some Republicans lost their seats by obsessing over the subject, while others skillfully used it -- along with other law-and-order issues -- to their advantage.

Freshman Democrats won conservative-leaning districts by talking tough on border security, while those in more liberal territory railed against what they characterized as punitive proposals by Republicans.

One thing, however, appears clear: Any comprehensive immigration legislation would split both Republican and Democratic caucuses in the House, where consensus on one of the most combustible issues in American politics remains elusive.

"It's a national issue, and I don't think there's a partisan solution to it," Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee said in an interview last week. "Democrats will find it every bit as daunting as Republicans will in finding the appropriate solution on security and borders."


Parties Factor Voting Power Into Immigration Policy
In Senate, Amnesty Tops List of Divisive Issues
The Immigration Minefield
In districts with sizable Latino populations, Republicans clearly took a hit last fall. Former Rep. Henry Bonilla, representing a West Texas district that includes San Antonio, was a strong supporter of Republican measures restricting illegal immigration. He voted for the construction of a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border and supported the bill penalizing employers for hiring illegal immigrants. Bonilla lost in the December 2006 runoff to former Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) can also thank her opponent's fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric for contributing to her victory in an open seat. Republican nominee Randy Graf ran a one-note campaign against illegal immigration but came up well short in the Tucson area district.

Rep. Harry E. Mitchell (D-Ariz.) was also the beneficiary of relentless attacks against undocumented aliens in his successful challenge to then-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R). Hayworth authored the book "Whatever It Takes," which lists his suggestions on how to "keep America from being overwhelmed by illegal immigration." He lost to Mitchell 50 percent to 46 percent.

Some successful Democratic challengers also effectively co-opted the immigration issue from their opponents. During his campaign, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) proposed building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and supported tougher penalties against illegal immigrants.

But victorious Republicans also used the immigration issue to their advantage, particularly in suburban districts where illegal immigrants are placing strains on public services. In Pennsylvania, GOP Rep. Jim Gerlach began his television campaign with an ad distancing himself from President Bush on immigration. He bombarded mailboxes referencing his border security bona fides. He was the only Republican who won in the Philadelphia area.

"At the time we ran that ad, many Republican voters were so disenfranchised because of what they perceived as a lack of ability from Republicans to govern at the presidential or congressional level," said Mark Campbell, Gerlach's former political director. "We needed to return to a message where common sense and civic responsibility were highlighted. That was an issue that struck a chord with those voters."

Other suburban area GOP members also highlighted the issue as a key tool in winning hard-fought campaigns. In ads and mailings, suburban Chicago Rep. Peter J. Roskam consistently accused Democratic opponent Tammy Duckworth of supporting "amnesty," because of her support for a guest worker proposal. In Cincinnati, Republican Rep. Steve Chabot similarly ran four ads attacking his Democratic opponent for supporting a "liberal immigration bill."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3038.html

"At the time we ran that ad, many Republican voters were so disenfranchised because of what they perceived as a lack of ability from Republicans to govern at the presidential or congressional level,"

I wish they'd stop with this crap about the Reps losing their elections solely based on their stance towards illegal immigration. They didn't lose because of this one topic, they lost because of the quote above.
They lost because they didn't do what they were elected to do and breeched their "contract w/ Americans".